Today Paul Dewer, NDP MP for Ottawa Centre, talked to the media directly after the Tories presented their EI reforms. Mr. Dewer told us that it would be “irresponsible” for the NDP not to closely examine the proposals before making a decision on whether to support the government or not. This is nothing short of complete political hypocrisy and opportunism! They didn’t need to read the previous budget, and instead the NDP told Canadians that because Harper and his government simply couldn’t be trusted it didn’t really matter what the budget said. Now, suddenly when they cannot blame the Liberals for propping up Harper, the NDP is into political responsibility. How disappointing! I agreed with the original NDP position, to wit; this government cannot be trusted, period! But it is disappointing to learn that they didn’t really mean it and it was just political posturing. Mr. Layton has now proven himself to be just like any other political leader in this Parliament; an opportunist who is more concerned with his own pension than real principles. (I have, of course, seen this before in Mr. Layton who failed repeatedly to condemn the invasion of Afghanistan until the political wind shifted and he saw the condemnation of Canada’s role as politically expedient. )
If you cannot stand on principles Jack, why are you the leader of the NDP? You need to resign now. . . . (And while you are at it Mr. Dewer, you need to resign also.)
7 comments:
Back in January the issue at hand was what party should form government. Under those circumstances it would have been both silly and dishonest for the NDP to say that the Conservatives could plausibly come forward with with a budget that would convince them to support Stephen Harper rather than a government that included the NDP.
This issue is very different. It is a single specific bill. The NDP has always said that they would support specific pieces of legislation that they actually agreed with--that not the same thing as propping the government up.
I agree anon. If the NDP can extract some good policy from Harper and the cost is a few more months of Harper as PM, its dang well worth the effort.
That said, it better be good Jack!
Dear Anonymous your comment is simple apologism, and opportunistic rationalization. I am sure you could, if you made an effort, rationalize the NDP supporting almost anything. But the thing about principle is that it does not dabble in such games.
Rationalize away if it helps you sleep. I won't be an apologist. . .
Listen guys . . . if this is really what it was about then the NDP would have tried to hold the Martin Government in office while a National Childcare program was on the table. But they didn't. And why? Because Layton thought he could get a few more seats with an election.
Desensus in cuniculi cavum. . . .
Wow Jack's becoming the kind of politician we're already saturated with. Oh boo-hoo. Go Jack, Go Gilles!
I can't figure out what the NDP will gain by waiting for an election next year. While the party may gain a few extra campaign dollars and be slightly more organized, the Liberals will gain more campaign dollars and be much better organized. Not only that, the Liberals will be able to demonstrate a sharper contrast from the Conservatives. They will become the Canadian alternative to the Conservatives. The NDP will become a side note no matter if it has great ideas.
Honestly. There hasn't been any vote as yet. And, last I checked, no vote was not the same as 79 confidence votes. Besides, if the language in the proposed legislation about the Colombia Free Trade Deal says what I think it says, any vote that does happen probably won't go the way the Conservatives want it to.
Furthermore, it's hardly opportunistic to deal with different situations differently. Anon correctly describes the differences between the budget situation and this proposed change to EI. You should also note how Martin changed his approach in dealing with the NDP from bill to bill. His government fell, and childcare failed, because of he changed his approach in dealing with the NDP. At the end, he became as arrogant as Harper has been throughout his tenure as Prime Minister. In consensus minority governments, every choice is a different choice, and the context in which each choice is made matters.
I should also point out that the national childcare program hasn't returned as Liberal policy since Martin. If it's good policy, why isn't it still in the playbook?
Post a Comment